Yes, so that people with five/six year old computers don't complain that Apple have badly neglected them when they can no longer run iTunes on their computers. Also, does iTunes need more than 4 gigs of ram?
It should work. AFAIK iPad/iPhone will print to any Bonjour connected printers on the network. So if another computer can see the printer through Airport then iPad/iPhone should be able to print straight to it without needing a computer on.
You had to dload a special OS X update that allowed a Mac to act an as intermediary for AirPrint to an Airport Extreme.
Then on that Mac you needed to go to the sys preferences printer pane, remove and re-add the printer to tickle the Bonjour.
Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.
Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.
First an awesome remote application and now an updated iOS 4.2 beta and a new iTunes 10.1. It must be Christmas in September.
Go Apple, go go go...
Talking of new Remote, I played with it for a few minuted last night and it is nice. Is this limited to control only, i.e. it has no ability such as AirVideo has to allow any movie in an iTunes Library to be viewed on any mobile device locally or over IP? I had assumed that the new Remote would obsolete AirVideo but so far I don't see it having those abilities or is this a coming soon feature? Maybe I missed the 'how'.
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
Just a thought (and I know you said normal consumer play back but ...) ... If a Mac Pro is crunching through a Final Cut Project, Rendering some file conversions in QT Player, editing in Photoshop and running 7 and OS X server in Parallels and uploading several GIGs via FTP and checking Mail and Safari ... all at the same time (A typical day for mine) then perhaps all apps running in 64 bit would make for smoother RAM handling if iTunes were also serving an HD video to someone in another room via ATV? I am not technical enough to know so perhaps iTunes in 32 bit here would make no difference (let alone FCPro!). Anyone know?
Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.
.
Awesome news to me, thanks for that info . I have been trying to ascertain the answer to this question for ages and always get ten different answers. I wonder if the printer attached to the AE matters? I use a Canon multifunction on my AE for the network.
Um, did you expect them to make the jump to 64 bit on a point release?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
I don't think anyone actually cares that it is 32 bit. What they are more likely to me complaining about is that it is still written using the old Carbon development tools that Apple publicly chide other large developers for being slow to move off (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Pretty much everything else written using Cocoa, which allows access to the APIs etc for all the clever goodness that is available like Grand Central etc and so on to allow apps to be more responsive and efficient, and less likely to give you the spinning beachball. iTunes still beachballs me when it starts to rip from a CD, it wouldn't do that if it was written in Cocoa (or at least has the potential to be written in such a way as to prevent it). It would also compile in 64 bit with Cocoa.
Of course, this is all very technical, but the shorthand is that if it's still in 32 bit, it's the most obvious sign that it's been written using deprecated development techniques. It doesn't need 4Gb RAM, and doesn't need to run in 64 bit, but by doing so it would get all sorts of very useful and welcome side effects, such as not sucking quite so much from a performance perspective.
I don't think anyone actually cares that it is 32 bit. What they are more likely to me complaining about is that it is still written using the old Carbon development tools that Apple publicly chide other large developers for being slow to move off (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Pretty much everything else written using Cocoa, which allows access to the APIs etc for all the clever goodness that is available like Grand Central etc and so on to allow apps to be more responsive and efficient, and less likely to give you the spinning beachball. iTunes still beachballs me when it starts to rip from a CD, it wouldn't do that if it was written in Cocoa (or at least has the potential to be written in such a way as to prevent it). It would also compile in 64 bit with Cocoa.
Of course, this is all very technical, but the shorthand is that if it's still in 32 bit, it's the most obvious sign that it's been written using deprecated development techniques. It doesn't need 4Gb RAM, and doesn't need to run in 64 bit, but by doing so it would get all sorts of very useful and welcome side effects, such as not sucking quite so much from a performance perspective.
I'm a huge fan of Cocoa, but the above is completely false. Cocoa apps are not inherently faster. In fact, they're actually slower, although not meaningfully so. Cocoa is higher level and technically has less direct access to functionality.
There are some apps that would be faster if based upon things like grand central, but I don't think iTunes would benefit much at all. Filtering and displaying this amount of tabular data, isn't something that would benefit much from additional multithreading.
The problem (if you are of the opinion that there is one) is not the language and APIs of the iTunes code base, but rather the age of the iTunes code base. Some programs can mature over time, becoming quite optimized and robust. However, iTunes has had tons of functionality added over the last decade, meaning that it was hard for the code to ever reach a clean and stable state. Also, keep in mind that Apple is trying to maintain perfect parity for the windows version. This means that it has to be reliant on lots of crusty portions of quicktime unless they want have two completely separate code bases for Mac and Windows. But again, this isn't a carbon vs cocoa thing.
The iTunes code started out as SoundJam MP after Apple bought the code and hired the developers. The quality of SoundJam back in 2000 was astonishing. It already felt like it was made by apple. It had responsive live window dragging and scrolling even though the Mac OS had yet to pull these things off successfully. Performance was pretty mind-blowing actually.
A complete rewrite could certainly result in a cleaner architecture. But that is just it. It is the cleaner architecture, not the change in language and APIs that would lead to better performance. Carbon is more than capable for what is required in iTunes. With that said, if doing a complete rewrite, cocoa would be the right choice.
Finally, at this point in the migration to cocoa, we should actually be happy that apple is still basing some of its software on carbon. This means that carbon will be better supported for all those apps which may never get completely rewritten from the ground up.
Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.
You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.
I have been trying to ascertain the answer to this question for ages and always get ten different answers. I wonder if the printer attached to the AE matters? I use a Canon multifunction on my AE for the network.
You get different answers because people keep answering PART of your question.
AirPrinting to a non-enabled printer uses the print drivers contained on a computer running OSX 10.6.5 or Windows and iTunes 10.1. So, you can print to any printer that computer can see -- so long as that computer is running and is on your local wi-fi network. That is a perfectly acceptable solution for someone like me who has one or more desktop computers running at all times. It is not an optimal solution, say, for a home with only notebook devices that may not be powered up, or may be out of the house.
Just a thought (and I know you said normal consumer play back but ...) ... If a Mac Pro is crunching through a Final Cut Project, Rendering some file conversions in QT Player, editing in Photoshop and running 7 and OS X server in Parallels and uploading several GIGs via FTP and checking Mail and Safari ... all at the same time (A typical day for mine) then perhaps all apps running in 64 bit would make for smoother RAM handling if iTunes were also serving an HD video to someone in another room via ATV? I am not technical enough to know so perhaps iTunes in 32 bit here would make no difference (let alone FCPro!). Anyone know?
i can't tell you how irritating these self righteous "I do more than you at once on my comp, that's how important I am" speeches are.
If you're doing all that, and something chokes...STF down.
You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.
Yea, it is about that, so WTF would need to print from it?
EVER!?! Let alone, that often that you wouldn't buy it?!
I would love to point out that, all of the people who argued with me back in JANUARY, about the iPad and it's future printing abilities...
Were. All. Wrong.
That's right, if you argued that there would ever be a reason to print from the iPad instead of using your Mac instead, you were wrong.
Now that the iPad can print, there's still NO reason to. If your printer isn't already plugged into a Mac or PC, you're not printing anything, so you might as well just print from the Mac or PC.
-
I was bitched at by every know-it-all here, who claimed that people actually own WiFi printers (they don't), and also told that the rest of the printers out there are plugged into Airports Time Capsules and other routers.
Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.
.
You will need a Mac or a PC running with printer sharing enabled. This is why I said "SHARED". Turn off the PC/Mac and you can't print anymore. The other poster was specifically asking if he can print WITHOUT having a computer on.
From Apple:
Quote:
For iOS 4.2 beta 2, testing printing requires:
-A printer that supports AirPrint, running the latest available firmware
-A printer shared through a Mac running Mac OS X 10.6.5 beta, available on the iOS developer page
-A printer shared through a PC running iTunes 10.1 beta, available on the iOS developer page
You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.
No you don't. You can enable printer sharing from your MBA and then you can print wirelessly to your TC printer as long as the MBA is on and connected to the network. I really don't care much about printing but I would love to be able to "Save As PDF" just like on my Mac.
Yes, so that people with five/six year old computers don't complain that Apple have badly neglected them when they can no longer run iTunes on their computers. Also, does iTunes need more than 4 gigs of ram?
Most of Apple's 64 bit applications are actually 32 and 64 bit in the same bundle. iTunes is the only program from Apple that isn't 64 bit on my system, and I know these programs still run on the first Intel Macs, which were 32 bit.
Apple made a big deal about how easy it was going to be to have this universal binary that had PPC, Intel, 32, and 64 bit all in one application bundle, so the fact that the application that is at the heart of the iPod/iPhone ecosystem hasn't made that transition yet seems rather odd. They brought the Finder up to 64 bit, and that was based on code even older than iTunes.
Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.
Ah... That kinda sucks, but hey, it's a step in the right direction. Apple takes sure steps, but they are sometimes little steps, at a time. I guess they didn't want to "clog up" the iPad with printer drivers.
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
First 64 bits would imply a Cocoa build. Cocoa is Apples way forward.
64 bit apps for the most part are faster. With respect to iTunes speed ups are welcome.
Since loading iTunes forces the Mac OS to load libraries it might not be using running iTunes ises more system resources than is required. This can lead to swappimg and other negative impacts. Using the Cocia libs already in RAMsimply lessens iTunes impact on RAM or it would if it was 64 bit. The savinhs is more than enough to make up for 64 bit bloat.
Going to 64 bit Cocoa would eliminate the possibility of a 32 bit release that ends up being temporary.
Lastly iTumes Status as a consummer app means nothing. You can get music playback with a 16 bit or 24 bit processor if you want. The bitness isn't so much an issue as having an app that optimally leverages an OS as it developes overtime. Since Snow Leopard is very much 64 bit that is what you want your apps supporting.
In a nut shell it is as once a trivial issue but yet important for many users. It is not however a thing worthy of your dismisal.
Comments
iTunes still 32bit....
Yes, so that people with five/six year old computers don't complain that Apple have badly neglected them when they can no longer run iTunes on their computers. Also, does iTunes need more than 4 gigs of ram?
It should work. AFAIK iPad/iPhone will print to any Bonjour connected printers on the network. So if another computer can see the printer through Airport then iPad/iPhone should be able to print straight to it without needing a computer on.
You had to dload a special OS X update that allowed a Mac to act an as intermediary for AirPrint to an Airport Extreme.
Then on that Mac you needed to go to the sys preferences printer pane, remove and re-add the printer to tickle the Bonjour.
I doubt that this has changed in this release.
.
Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.
Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.
.
iTunes still 32bit....
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
First an awesome remote application and now an updated iOS 4.2 beta and a new iTunes 10.1. It must be Christmas in September.
Go Apple, go go go...
Talking of new Remote, I played with it for a few minuted last night and it is nice. Is this limited to control only, i.e. it has no ability such as AirVideo has to allow any movie in an iTunes Library to be viewed on any mobile device locally or over IP? I had assumed that the new Remote would obsolete AirVideo but so far I don't see it having those abilities or is this a coming soon feature? Maybe I missed the 'how'.
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
Just a thought (and I know you said normal consumer play back but ...) ... If a Mac Pro is crunching through a Final Cut Project, Rendering some file conversions in QT Player, editing in Photoshop and running 7 and OS X server in Parallels and uploading several GIGs via FTP and checking Mail and Safari ... all at the same time (A typical day for mine) then perhaps all apps running in 64 bit would make for smoother RAM handling if iTunes were also serving an HD video to someone in another room via ATV? I am not technical enough to know so perhaps iTunes in 32 bit here would make no difference (let alone FCPro!). Anyone know?
Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.
.
Awesome news to me, thanks for that info
Um, did you expect them to make the jump to 64 bit on a point release?
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
I don't think anyone actually cares that it is 32 bit. What they are more likely to me complaining about is that it is still written using the old Carbon development tools that Apple publicly chide other large developers for being slow to move off (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Pretty much everything else written using Cocoa, which allows access to the APIs etc for all the clever goodness that is available like Grand Central etc and so on to allow apps to be more responsive and efficient, and less likely to give you the spinning beachball. iTunes still beachballs me when it starts to rip from a CD, it wouldn't do that if it was written in Cocoa (or at least has the potential to be written in such a way as to prevent it). It would also compile in 64 bit with Cocoa.
Of course, this is all very technical, but the shorthand is that if it's still in 32 bit, it's the most obvious sign that it's been written using deprecated development techniques. It doesn't need 4Gb RAM, and doesn't need to run in 64 bit, but by doing so it would get all sorts of very useful and welcome side effects, such as not sucking quite so much from a performance perspective.
I don't think anyone actually cares that it is 32 bit. What they are more likely to me complaining about is that it is still written using the old Carbon development tools that Apple publicly chide other large developers for being slow to move off (Microsoft, Adobe, etc). Pretty much everything else written using Cocoa, which allows access to the APIs etc for all the clever goodness that is available like Grand Central etc and so on to allow apps to be more responsive and efficient, and less likely to give you the spinning beachball. iTunes still beachballs me when it starts to rip from a CD, it wouldn't do that if it was written in Cocoa (or at least has the potential to be written in such a way as to prevent it). It would also compile in 64 bit with Cocoa.
Of course, this is all very technical, but the shorthand is that if it's still in 32 bit, it's the most obvious sign that it's been written using deprecated development techniques. It doesn't need 4Gb RAM, and doesn't need to run in 64 bit, but by doing so it would get all sorts of very useful and welcome side effects, such as not sucking quite so much from a performance perspective.
I'm a huge fan of Cocoa, but the above is completely false. Cocoa apps are not inherently faster. In fact, they're actually slower, although not meaningfully so. Cocoa is higher level and technically has less direct access to functionality.
There are some apps that would be faster if based upon things like grand central, but I don't think iTunes would benefit much at all. Filtering and displaying this amount of tabular data, isn't something that would benefit much from additional multithreading.
The problem (if you are of the opinion that there is one) is not the language and APIs of the iTunes code base, but rather the age of the iTunes code base. Some programs can mature over time, becoming quite optimized and robust. However, iTunes has had tons of functionality added over the last decade, meaning that it was hard for the code to ever reach a clean and stable state. Also, keep in mind that Apple is trying to maintain perfect parity for the windows version. This means that it has to be reliant on lots of crusty portions of quicktime unless they want have two completely separate code bases for Mac and Windows. But again, this isn't a carbon vs cocoa thing.
The iTunes code started out as SoundJam MP after Apple bought the code and hired the developers. The quality of SoundJam back in 2000 was astonishing. It already felt like it was made by apple. It had responsive live window dragging and scrolling even though the Mac OS had yet to pull these things off successfully. Performance was pretty mind-blowing actually.
A complete rewrite could certainly result in a cleaner architecture. But that is just it. It is the cleaner architecture, not the change in language and APIs that would lead to better performance. Carbon is more than capable for what is required in iTunes. With that said, if doing a complete rewrite, cocoa would be the right choice.
Finally, at this point in the migration to cocoa, we should actually be happy that apple is still basing some of its software on carbon. This means that carbon will be better supported for all those apps which may never get completely rewritten from the ground up.
Ah... the nostalgia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundJam_MP
Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.
You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.
I have been trying to ascertain the answer to this question for ages and always get ten different answers. I wonder if the printer attached to the AE matters? I use a Canon multifunction on my AE for the network.
You get different answers because people keep answering PART of your question.
AirPrinting to a non-enabled printer uses the print drivers contained on a computer running OSX 10.6.5 or Windows and iTunes 10.1. So, you can print to any printer that computer can see -- so long as that computer is running and is on your local wi-fi network. That is a perfectly acceptable solution for someone like me who has one or more desktop computers running at all times. It is not an optimal solution, say, for a home with only notebook devices that may not be powered up, or may be out of the house.
Just a thought (and I know you said normal consumer play back but ...) ... If a Mac Pro is crunching through a Final Cut Project, Rendering some file conversions in QT Player, editing in Photoshop and running 7 and OS X server in Parallels and uploading several GIGs via FTP and checking Mail and Safari ... all at the same time (A typical day for mine) then perhaps all apps running in 64 bit would make for smoother RAM handling if iTunes were also serving an HD video to someone in another room via ATV? I am not technical enough to know so perhaps iTunes in 32 bit here would make no difference (let alone FCPro!). Anyone know?
If you're doing all that, and something chokes...STF down.
You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.
Yea, it is about that, so WTF would need to print from it?
EVER!?! Let alone, that often that you wouldn't buy it?!
Were. All. Wrong.
That's right, if you argued that there would ever be a reason to print from the iPad instead of using your Mac instead, you were wrong.
Now that the iPad can print, there's still NO reason to. If your printer isn't already plugged into a Mac or PC, you're not printing anything, so you might as well just print from the Mac or PC.
-
I was bitched at by every know-it-all here, who claimed that people actually own WiFi printers (they don't), and also told that the rest of the printers out there are plugged into Airports Time Capsules and other routers.
Well, lotta good that will do you.
Not true -- see my prior post. I print to an old HP 5700 attached to my Airport Extreme.
.
You will need a Mac or a PC running with printer sharing enabled. This is why I said "SHARED". Turn off the PC/Mac and you can't print anymore. The other poster was specifically asking if he can print WITHOUT having a computer on.
From Apple:
For iOS 4.2 beta 2, testing printing requires:
-A printer that supports AirPrint, running the latest available firmware
-A printer shared through a Mac running Mac OS X 10.6.5 beta, available on the iOS developer page
-A printer shared through a PC running iTunes 10.1 beta, available on the iOS developer page
You can'r be serious. Who uses a hard wired printer today? Unless I can print to my TimeCapsule connected printer (used by 2 MacBooks) then i won't be buying the iPad I want. Isn't the iPad all about the cloud and wireless? I'm supposed to disconnect the cable from my wifi router (Time Capsule), plug it into my MacBook Air and then print from my iPad? And then reverse the whole procedure for everyday printing? That's ridiculous.
No you don't. You can enable printer sharing from your MBA and then you can print wirelessly to your TC printer as long as the MBA is on and connected to the network. I really don't care much about printing but I would love to be able to "Save As PDF" just like on my Mac.
Yes, so that people with five/six year old computers don't complain that Apple have badly neglected them when they can no longer run iTunes on their computers. Also, does iTunes need more than 4 gigs of ram?
Most of Apple's 64 bit applications are actually 32 and 64 bit in the same bundle. iTunes is the only program from Apple that isn't 64 bit on my system, and I know these programs still run on the first Intel Macs, which were 32 bit.
Apple made a big deal about how easy it was going to be to have this universal binary that had PPC, Intel, 32, and 64 bit all in one application bundle, so the fact that the application that is at the heart of the iPod/iPhone ecosystem hasn't made that transition yet seems rather odd. They brought the Finder up to 64 bit, and that was based on code even older than iTunes.
Actually AirPrint will only work with printers that support AirPrint or a printer shared through a Mac or PC. It will not work with printers connected to your Airport Extreme Base or Time Capsule unless the printed is AirPrint Capable. Hopefully this will change in the future.
Ah... That kinda sucks, but hey, it's a step in the right direction. Apple takes sure steps, but they are sometimes little steps, at a time. I guess they didn't want to "clog up" the iPad with printer drivers.
There will be IOS updates and apps that I can't imagine, but Steve Jobs can and he will implement them.
For now I am thrilled to be receiving my own tv, it's due to arrive tomorrow.
Because consumer media playback needs to run at 64bit?
- First 64 bits would imply a Cocoa build. Cocoa is Apples way forward.
- 64 bit apps for the most part are faster. With respect to iTunes speed ups are welcome.
- Since loading iTunes forces the Mac OS to load libraries it might not be using running iTunes ises more system resources than is required. This can lead to swappimg and other negative impacts. Using the Cocia libs already in RAMsimply lessens iTunes impact on RAM or it would if it was 64 bit. The savinhs is more than enough to make up for 64 bit bloat.
- Going to 64 bit Cocoa would eliminate the possibility of a 32 bit release that ends up being temporary.
- Lastly iTumes Status as a consummer app means nothing. You can get music playback with a 16 bit or 24 bit processor if you want. The bitness isn't so much an issue as having an app that optimally leverages an OS as it developes overtime. Since Snow Leopard is very much 64 bit that is what you want your apps supporting.
In a nut shell it is as once a trivial issue but yet important for many users. It is not however a thing worthy of your dismisal.